Sisyphus

How the hell do you accidentally load a nuclear weapon? Something fishy is going on. My guess is that the public just wasn't supposed to know about it, and the claim that "nobody knew why they were mounted in the first place" is B.S.

But I'm asking you to support those assertions. We're talking about healthcare. Your assertion is that, say, the Canadian healthcare system can't compete with the American healthcare system? Those are tendencies which need to be kept in line, true, but they're not insurmountable. To say that it's impossible that any government employee is accountable for anything is a bit silly, IMO, and to say that they can't be is just ridiculous. But yes, I agree that's the tendency, and I agree it's certainly not perfect. It's just better than the bullshit we have now. Interestingly, all of those countries ranked above us have more centralized, federal control of education than we do. So our problems with education are not a failure of "government," they're a failure of our government. Or rather, our governments, since the policies in public schools in America are patchworks from at least three levels of government... but that's a different discussion entirely. The fact that they spend a lot less and are still healthier than we are, and the fact that administrative costs make up a far higher percentage of money spent on healthcare here in the U.S. than just about anywhere else. What other definition of efficiency do you want? Isn't that supposedly the problem with government, that money is wasted on bureaucracy instead of producing a product? No, it's not conclusive, but you'd have to be pretty intentionally thickheaded not to admit it's evidence. You can always anecdotes supporting any particular position, hence they're rarely worth much. Who doesn't know people with health insurance horror stories? Hell, I've been screwed over. And everyone I've talked to about it who's lived under both (specifically, Canada, UK, Germany, Poland, and New Zealand, as well as the U.S. for at least a few years) has been horrified by the U.S. system. Define "decent," I guess. We're talking about relative merit.

When I heard about this, my first thought was that it can't possibly really match the hype, because not even network executive could be that dumb (at least as far as inviting lawsuits is concerned). When I heard they were trying to screen an episode to "put concerned parties' fears to rest," I figured I was right, and it will be less like lord of the flies and more like a sadistic babysitter.

ParanoiA, all I'm hearing from you is kneejerk "government can't do anything right" dogma (and it is dogma, as anything is once it's applied in all cases in lieu of considering situations individually), and no addressing of the empirical fact that in places where they do have universal healthcare, they pay less (not just "losers," everyone), because less money is spent, not because the care is inferior, but because it's more efficient, because the administrative costs are far lower. By cold, hard pragmatism, it is the superior option. So why shouldn't we do it? Because "we've chosen capitalism?" Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we pick and choose which aspects and methods actually work better? For that matter, how can we justify not doing so?

Also, it is orbiting the sun. It's just also orbiting the Earth.

Well, we know she signed up for a beauty pageant, which means she does want to be in the spotlight, and to be rewarded for being pretty. She's tried very hard to invite the scrutiny of as many people as possible, and now she's gotten it. Boo hoo.

That's pretty much how I see it, as well. It is very much like the military-industrial complex, with private military contractors and health insurance industry playing the same roll. A whole lot of money gets wasted, and that money buys the influence to make sure it continues to be wasted. The only difference is whether I'm writing my check to the government or the health insurance agencies.

"...for it is custom in Persia to make plans while drunk, but decide on them sober." - Herodotus In other words, it's alright if you come up with ideas while you're high, but you should always sober up and reconsider them the next morning before you go around telling people. That's some ancient wisdom, right there.

You're acting like there's no counterexamples. Like, say, our health care system...

1. No, it doesn't cure any diseases. It might be therapeutic, though, inasmuch as it can have a calming and cheering effect, which certainly can't hurt, especially with mental health issues. 2. I've never heard of that and I can't find anything about it. I can't imagine how it would, though.

I dunno, one meter is probably too high for stacking fans. The first thing I would try would be to cut it into strips, roll those strips into tubes, overlapping when rolling so you get three long tubes, plus some left over. Put the tubes into a triangular pyramid shape, including more tubes for the base, with additional tubes supports up and down the height as need be. I'm thinking there might not be enough paper for that, either, though.

It's just our map-having that makes us arrogant. ...but seriously though, if we live in a world where we aren't allowed to laugh at a speech as absurd as that at an event as absurd as "the Miss Teen USA pageant," then isn't that just really, really depressing?

Yes, more education does mean higher pay. But it's just one of many factors, and not necessarily even the most important one.

Although Galileo did perform a lot of experiments, he wasn't strictly an empiricist. The methods of "science" as we know it really began with Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes, and slowly evolved and gained respect over the following centuries. Galileo performed experiments to prove his points to skeptics (it was the Aristotleans who demanded he prove his wild claims with demonstrations, actually), and he did change his views as the result of such experiments, but experiment was not a rule he followed. He had more trust in logic and mathematics than empirical results. Also, enough of the Aristotle bashing. His theories were based on observation, just not necessarily controlled experiment (a la Francis Bacon) and mathematization and quantification (a la Galileo). The problem was not with Aristotle, but with those who dogmatized his ideas.

Most disparities in pay between professions can be explained in relatively simple market terms, i.e. supply and demand. Employers want to pay the least they can, and employees want to make the most they can. If an employer can pay less and still recruit talent, he will. If lots of people want to pursue a certain field and there isn't an overabundance of jobs in that field, employers can offer relatively little pay and still get plenty of qualified applicants for a position. What causes more or less "supply" could be any number of factors. Financial advantage is just one of many reasons a person might choose one career path over another. The end result is that everything tends to more or less even out. Jobs which require more education, rarer talents, more hard work, more social stigma, or more risk pay more money. Jobs which are more interesting, more prestigious, more fulfilling, or trendier pay less money. That's why any even moderately intelligent person can become extremely rich if becoming rich is all he cares about, and why the extremely intelligent, who are mostly bored by such paths, tend not to be rich. Obviously there are plenty of exceptions, but that is the general rule.

Perhaps they also need it to maintain Western values. Even now they're a highly militarized society, criss-crossed with defended walls and dotted with army checkpoints. They are a tiny nation surrounded by larger... if not enemies, then not really not enemies, either. The threat of violence is everywhere and at all times, and it makes them quite understandably paranoid and often brutal. What would they become if they had to stand alone, forced to carry the whole burden themselves and with no allies to moderate their actions?

No, if there's another mass inside the sphere, then the gravity inside is pulling towards that mass. There's still zero gravity from the shell, though.

Hehe, foolish inspectors should have been looking in their own filing cabinets! And just think, World War 1 technology, in the heart of New York!

Probably a lot of you have seen this before, but I thought it was cool. It's "content-aware image sizing," and it makes it ridiculously easy to edit images in all kinds of crazy ways. And the video is narrated by Kermit the Frog, apparently!

You might be right if she were actually hot, but she's really not at all, just "wholesome and Southern looking," which is to say WASPy, well-painted, glassy eyed, and platinum blonde, but not as thin as Hollywood bimbos. Also, I don't really think it's "elitism" to laugh at something that stupid. Take that, girl I've never heard of!

I mostly agree with the reasons for supporting Israel above. We're trying to stabilize the region. Without American support, a very bad war would be much more likely. It's not fair, I don't like it, and I'm not convinced it does more good than harm, but I would be afraid to test the alternative, so there you have it. As for the "conditional support" proposal. I don't think it's realistic. That's because the problem with Israel, and the hatred so much of the Arab world has for Israel, is not based on this or that military action or checkpoint or exile. The problem with Israel as I see it is in its fundamental concept: as a Jewish state. No, it's not exactly a theocracy, and of course there are plenty of Israeli citizens who aren't Jewish. But it's a Jewish state nonetheless, as nobody can plausibly deny. Symbolically it's obvious: it was founded for that purpose, it has a Star of David on its flag, etc. But there are also real, concrete practical ways in which Jews are the "ruling class." Jews from all over the world have privileges in Israel. They can vote in elections, the government makes it extremely easy for them to move their, etc. Zionism is bigotry. Putting myself in the shoes of a non-Jewish Israeli, it's hard to imagine not being pissed off about all of that. The Israeli government feels very much like a colonial power in its own country, and that is simply unacceptable to a great many people, and understandably so. So what "condition" would make American support just, and take the wind out of the sails of Arab animosity and terrorist recruitment? Basically, Israel would have to no longer be Israel. You can't have a Jewish state in the Middle East and have any hope for lasting peace, because it's very existence is understandably seen as an act of war. Religious war, and cultural war, and colonial oppression. I believe that if the governments of both Israel and the Palestinian territories were to collapse, that land and that population could live in peace, if a truly secular and equable state were founded in their place. Or at least, they could have, if that had been the approach from the beginning. As it is now, a few generations of hatred and violence probably couldn't just disappear overnight. (Please note, I'm not throwing in my lot with the Palestinians here. Overall, they're blinded by hatred, their leaders are murderous thugs, and the entrenched powers really don't want what they ask for, because their power derives from being oppressed. I sympathize with the original, stated cause. That's it. Just want to head off any "but they're terrorists!" garbage before it starts.)

I was using "Islamicist" to mean one whose political position is determined by Muslim religious goals. (I don't know if it's used in different senses elsewhere.) I don't really see how such a person could not be a Muslim (or at least, how they could not publicly claim to be a Muslim...?). However, even a very devout Muslim is not necessarily an Islamicist, if they believe in a separation of Mosque and State.

So basically the only real problems from GM crops is not the process itself, but unscrupulous agribusinesses genetically modifying varieties to counterproductive (but profitable) ends. What is needed is more public knowledge, so educated consumers can distinguish the good from the bad. Hysterical technophobes help nothing.

It's about time someone had the courage speak out about the failure of the US America education system to provide maps to South Africa and Iraq for the future.

New Zealand: Australia's Canada